Ah, this was the week to be peeking in on the Hounds of the Internet listserver gang! The blood was up, arguments were being made, even a little bit of nasty old ad hominum was coming in. Eventually, of course, el list capitan issued the cease-and-desist order for all chatter on the topic in question, but that didn’t mean there wasn’t some fun to be had watching on the sidelines for myself and my barred-from-the-list neighbor. Kind of reminded one of the good old days . . .

The matter in question was one more little clash of the two factions of Sherlockiana’s Great Divide. We don’t have Republicans and Democrats, or Shiite and Sunni Muslims. We have Watsonians (as in “Watson penned the true cases of Holmes”) and Doyleans (Conan Doyle made it all up).  Sure, not all Sherlockians fall in one camp or the other. But there are still those who have chosen a side, and when they deem it necessary, will speak up for that side. Sometimes with some passion.

And why not? Nobody has ever been killed in this little debate. No punches have ever been thrown. And if somebody just happened to use ALL CAPS SHOUTING on some internet message or the other, well, if that’s the worst violence to happen to you today, well, I’ll get out my violin and play weepy chords for you if you need it. But I love to see Sherlockians get worked up about their hobby, even if some of them are oh-so-wrong-headed. (Yep, I’m not a guy who straddles that particular fence.)

Should emotion be a part of Sherlockian doings? After all, wasn’t it Our Hero, who advised such things as “Detection is, or ought to be, an exact science, and should be treated in the same cold and unemotional manner”? Wasn’t Holmes the foremost proponent of objectivity, logic used with the utmost emotional detachment, and keeping the facts at arm’s length?

He was. But he was also speaking of the detective process, the way his work got done. When his work was done,  or even if he was just enjoying some unexpected turn of events, Sherlock Holmes was as emotional as anyone. Laughing, clapping his hands, getting angry when things didn’t go his way . . . all these were just as much a part of the Holmes method as the detached analytical side. He was a man who took the utmost pleasure in his work . . . just as we take pleasure in exploring his work.

The things you remember in life are usually the moments that have an emotional component associated with them. Think of the best times from your past and you’ll find plenty of evidence for that point. Of course, there is that line between enjoying the emotions that come naturally with desire and accomplishment, and purposefully stirring up conflict to add drama. Enough conflicts are going to occur naturally, as it did on the Hounds of the Internet this week, and a little verbal conflict is actually good. Re-examining the status quo, checking your own view of the world.

And a little bit of irritation can be a wonderful motivator . . . if you’re not the sort to retreat into your shell at any sign of conflict (and a lot of us have those moments), the desire to prove one’s side to be the superior one can spur accomplishment in that direction.

As much as the devout Doylean might find the persistent Watsonian a juvenile annoyance, or the ardent Watsonian might consider the strict Doylean a big party-pooper, you don’t often see anyone from either camp breaking off from the Sherlockian mainstream to form their own separate hobby. Apparently we can all temper our enthusiasm with enough logic to see that even those other fellows have their uses . . . .

Your humble correspondent,

Brad Keefauver